Skip to main content

It's not accurate to say that someone 'lost' their battle with cancer



Whenever I see a well known person or celebrity who died of cancer the common text surrounding the death will usually include sentences such as ‘they lost their battle with cancer.’

I’ve had family members pass away from this disease but I know that I am not alone. Around 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives.

My issue with the phrase is that cancer is not a battle one can control. By categorising a cancer death with ‘losing the battle’ implies that there is an element of control by the person suffering from the disease.

The success rate will depend on the stage of cancer, how far it has spread and how aggressive the cancer is. Even after a cancer battle is ‘won’ (meaning remission) it is still an on going burden. Cancer treatment today involves chemotherapy but the important thing to remember is that chemotherapy is not a cure. It is a treatment. That individual will still need to monitor their cancer for years to come.

My father got cancer at the age of 35. Prior to this he was a healthy athletic 6’4 man.  It was non hodgkins lymphoma (the same type of cancer that claimed the life of Jackie Onassis). By the time he felt symptoms and went to see a doctor, they discovered that the cancer was aggressive and had spread. Six weeks later he died. That was all it took. This was not a winnable battle for him and something that was not in his control.

Image result for jackie onassis
 
Cancer does not discriminate. The old, the young and the healthy are susceptible to this disease.

Once a person gets cancer their fate may already be decided. It is not an outcome anyone will be able to control. It is not their fault. They did not ‘lose the battle’ if the battle was never winnable to begin with. 

Thank you for reading xx

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We won't achieve Gender Equality until Ardern's situation is viewed as normal.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern discovered she was pregnant only six days away from being announced as Prime Minister on 19 October 2017. At first she and partner Clarke Gayford chose to keep it quiet but since announcing her pregnancy the 37 year old has received a mixed response with some feeling 'betrayed' by the announcement, accusing her of being 'selfish' for putting her needs before her country and that she chose to have her baby at the wrong time and should have 'waited' until she wasn't prime minister. Others have suggested that due to the pregnancy she will not be 'fit for purpose' and cannot possibly handle being prime minister as well as being pregnant. Mainly because you know....'baby brain?' There has also been concern around the amount of time she will take for maternity leave. Ardern has stated that she is going to take six weeks off and that her partner Gayford will look after the baby. Ardern's situat

‘Let them eat cake’ - How NSW Youth fell through the cracks under Berejiklian

Youth are being sold the carrot of NSW’s strong economy, even though they fail to benefit from it.  At yesterday’s campaign launch Berejiklian announced that NSW can ‘have it all’. Speaking to the crowd, she boasted about the lowest unemployment rates in NSW..ever. Berejiklian has pledged to spend billions on schools, hospitals and infrastructure.  The carrot for voters?  NSW’s strong economy.  NSW’s strong economy is conducive the astronomical property boom that Sydney experienced. Sydney’s median house prices experienced an 86 per cent increase in the last 5 years. Stamp duty from property has contributed to the budget surplus.  That surplus has been spent on infrastructure under Berejiklian and her predecessors, including the light rail project, West Connex and the demolishing of the ANZ stadium.  If you think that NSW will have never ending surpluses to spend in the coming years, you may be mistaken.   The spending spree will have to come to a halt. As there are some

Goodbye, Mr Bean: As Dastyari resigns we need to revisit the legitimacy of political donations

Goodbye, Mr Bean: As Dastyari resigns we need to revisit the legitimacy of political donations Sam Dastyari has announced his resignation yesterday amid pressure from parliament and the general public. Dastyari, as we now know accepted a payment from Chinese based real estate company Yuhu Property Group to settle a legal bill. Chinese billionaire Mr Huang Xiangmo owns Yuhu. In 2013, Dastyari was being sued for $40,000 by an advertising company called  ' Diversified Communications ’ for preparatory work on the ALP campaign. This was when Dastyari was General Secretary of the NSW ALP. The contract was then cancelled when Kevin Rudd was given the flick (or the stab in the back, depending on how you look at it). The payment from Yuhu to settle the legal bill was around $5,000. You cannot help but wonder whether the 5k paid was the full amount disclosed? and why Diversified Communications accepted such a low figure in settlement? Dastyari's name has been dragged thro